[WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/27/2009 1:54:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,  
doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com writes:

A church  website, if it is obviously aimed at PR 
and full of blurb,  should  have claims of membership and influence taken 
with a pinch of salt.  However, a page on a small church which narrates 
that it was built in  1791, built of sandstone, and has a clock tower of 
gothic style dating  from 1806 built by village subscription to celebrate 
Trafalgar, and that  six generations of the family of the Lord of Boggle, 
is hardly likely to  be lying. And if the same information can be 
verified for the website of  the county historical society, then common 
sense says we have  enough.>>


------------------
 
Historical Society websites are not reliable sources.
For the most part they consist of segments written by amateur historians  
and amateur genealogists.
 
I started the Local History Project, and not even I would consider a site  
like that reliable and citable.
 
IF one of those authors has been previously published by a third-party  
publisher (who does fact-checking), then it might be considered a reliable  
source.  But not until then.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=
Aprilfooter427NO62)